STRASBOURG, France — In a case that
is being referred to as “Europe’s Roe v. Wade,” three
women have taken the Irish government to a European Union court in an attempt
to change the nation’s abortion law.

The women, known only as A, B and C,
have petitioned the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in Strasbourg,
France, to create a “right to abortion” in the European Convention on Human
Rights. They want to see that “right” overrule the right to life guaranteed in
Ireland’s Constitution, which “acknowledges the right to life of the unborn”
and commits the state to protect that right, but permits citizens to travel
freely to other countries to obtain abortions.

The European Court of Human Rights,
which is the same court that ruled last November that the crucifixes hanging in
every Italian public school classroom were a “violation of the freedom of
parents to educate their children according to their own convictions and of the
religious freedom of the students,” began hearing A,
B et C v. Ireland in mid-December. The plaintiffs, who traveled
to the United Kingdom to obtain abortions, have challenged Ireland’s law,
saying the expense and hardship involved in going abroad for the procedure
constituted a violation of their human rights. They argue they should have been
given access to abortion in Ireland.

One woman, who is recovering from
drug and alcohol abuse, has children in social care. She said that to continue
her pregnancy would have jeopardized her chances of regaining custody of her
other children.

Another woman was told that she was
in danger of an ectopic pregnancy. The third was undergoing treatment for
cancer.

One woman is Latvian; the other two
are Irish.

The three have not attempted to take
the case through the Irish court system, opting instead to go to the European
court for judgment.

That troubled Bill Saunders, senior
vice president of Americans United for Life, a consultant in the case who was
in Strasbourg for the hearings. He pointed out that the European Convention on
Human Rights requires that all possible domestic remedies be exhausted before
the European Court of Human Rights has jurisdiction. In this case, the
plaintiffs were able to go to the court’s Grand Chamber, bypassing its lower
chamber.

The European Court of Human Rights
has dealt with abortion law before. In 2003, the Tysiac
v. Poland case was brought against the Polish government by a woman
seeking an abortion who claimed that her deteriorating eyesight was caused by
her pregnancy. One general practitioner supported her claim; five expert
doctors found that there was no connection between the two.

After the birth of her child, three
more experts again found no connection, but the European Court of Human Rights
ignored those eight expert opinions in favor of the one expressed by the
general practitioner. The European Court of Human Rights ruled against the
Polish government in 2007 and imposed a fine.

But Saunders said that the Irish
government had put forward its case well. The plaintiffs advanced a series of
unprovable assertions and questionable claims, such as “The Irish people want
to liberalize abortion,” he said.

Saunders said the case could
determine whether the court will take a step back from deciding on signatory
states’ policies on issues like abortion, or whether its judges will exploit
the Tysiac finding to force countries
like Ireland to justify why they do not have abortion like most European Union
member states.

The Irish Family Planning
Association declined comment, referring the Register to its website, where a
statement contends that Ireland has breached the women’s human rights under
various articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. The organization
cites in particular Articles 2 (Right to Life), 3 (Prohibition of Torture), 8
(Right to Respect for Family and Private Life) and 14 (Prohibition of
Discrimination).

But the court’s mandate is to
enforce implementation of the convention, and Article 2 says that “everyone’s
right to life shall be protected by law.”

The Irish government, which is
defending the case, did not wish to make any statement pending the outcome of
the case.

Precious Life, an Irish pro-life
group, issued a statement noting, “Any decision on abortion in Ireland should
only be made by the Irish people, who have the sovereign right to decide on
issues of national importance. This is not a matter for a foreign court to decide.”

Citing Ireland’s low maternal
mortality rate as proof of the safety afforded pregnant women in the country,
Precious Life contended: “No woman in Ireland is refused legitimate medical
treatment for any complication during pregnancy. For example, medical treatment
for an ectopic pregnancy is a perfectly legitimate procedure in Ireland.”

Though the judicial outlook is
mixed, one thing that pleased Saunders was seeing a lot of young people from
Ireland outside the court carrying pro-life posters.